Guillermo Del Toro recently talked with NY Times' Daniel Zaleweki. The main focus of their discussion concerns his upcoming film At the Mountains of Madness, an adaptation of a classic story by H.P. Lovecraft which is being produced by James Cameron, but it also covers The Hobbit, Frankenstein, and even his childhood. The entire interview is incredibly interesting--the way it's written makes it feel like you're reading a detailed and flowing narrative instead of a simple interview.
It's easier for you to just read it than for me to try and explain it. Read it here.
Oh, and for a laugh, look at the below photo, which features Del Toro enjoying a Lakers game with famed DreamWorks dude Jeffrey Katzenberg. Although I hate seeing ol' Guillermo fraternizing with the enemy, it is an interesting dynamic to picture in your head...
Showing posts with label Katzenberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Katzenberg. Show all posts
Friday, February 4, 2011
A Great Interview with Guillermo
Sunday, June 6, 2010
'The Men Who Would Be King'
If you look at Disney, etc. often, you'll know I am a Pixar and Disney guy, and not too fond of DreamWorks Animation as a whole. Sure, they have some great films such as Shrek and Kung Fu Panda, but, overall, their films aren't of the same quality as Disney or Pixar. Still, I love movies and animation, and am interested in all of the studios' histories and creative methods. Therefore, I am definitely going to pick up a copy of The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks. It has great reviews (here's one from Business Week), and apparently contains a lot of thorough research and animation history. Here's an interview with the book's author, Nicole Laporte. When asked if DreamWorks will ever surpass Pixar, Laporte comments:
The Pixar culture is the anti-Hollywood studio. It’s based in Northern California. They nurture these ideas over years. At Dreamworks, it’s much more about the way a live action movie gets made. You hire Judd Apatow to come in one day and write some jokes and punch it up. At this point, Pixar is head and shoulders above everyone. I don’t see them passing on the crown any time soon. But I think Katzenberg has seen the folly of his ways. I think he realized you have to let the artist be the artist.The book is available from Amazon now for $18.50.
Source: Cartoon Brew
Saturday, March 27, 2010
My Review of 'How to Train Your Dragon'
In 2006, Chris Sanders was removed from his post at Disney Animation Studios. Previously, he had worked on
DreamWorks Animation does not have a flawless record when it comes to their films. Over the Hedge was decent, but Monsters vs. Aliens was really awful. Shrek and Kung Fu Panda were great, but The Bee Movie and Shark Tale were just bad. I wasn't sure what I would think of How to Train Your Dragon, but was pleasantly surprised by what I did.
(Spoiler Alert!)
In the Viking village of Berk, killing dragons is a way of life. Dragons regularly raid the village for food, and the Vikings always retaliate, being lead by their chief Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler). Every member of the town contributes to the cause of destroying the beasts—they all either fight or make weapons or keep the women and children safe. Well, every member except for Hiccup, that is. Hiccup longs to become a heroic dragon-killer like his father, the chief, but he is scrawny and weak.
During one of the dragons' attacks on the village, Hiccup tests a large catapult he's created and successfully takes down a dreaded Night Fury dragon, the likes of which have never been seen. The next day, Hiccup hikes through the forest and finds the fallen brute. Carefully, our hero approaches the creature with his knife drawn, preparing to cut its heart out to earn the honor and respect he's been dreaming of. But, at the last second, he decides to cut the ropes and free the creature instead.
Hiccup returns several days later and sees that the dragon's tail was damaged. Hiccup creates a new tail attachment for Toothless (what he has named the Night Fury), and very carefully approaches him to fasten it on. After some modifications, the new tail works perfectly, and Hiccup and Toothless quickly become best friends.
Being best friends with the dragon, Hiccup quickly realizes that everybody's beliefs about dragons are completely wrong. The Vikings think that the dragons are evil, brutish creatures who only live to attack and kill, whereas the truth is that the dragons are frightened, calm creatures who only fight in defense. If they're treated kindly, like Hiccup treats Toothless, then the dragons really are gentle beings. When the chief decides to hunt for the dragons' nest, Hiccup tries to explain that the dragons really aren't vicious creatures at all. But trying to change the beliefs of generations and generations of his father's people provokes an absolute war between the dragons and vikings, and only Hiccup and his faithful Toothless can end the madness once and for all.
(End Spoiler Alert!)
How to Train Your Dragon's story is fairly straightforward. There is an outcast who dreams of doing bigger and better things, eventually gets his chance to do so, and then succeeds. This universal plot outline is known as the Hero's Journey, and is followed exactly by How to Train Your Dragon. That's not to say it's a bad thing—almost every story follows the Hero's Journey in one way or another, and this movie managed to utilize the universal outline very well.
The most amazing aspect of this movie for me were the two main characters, Hiccup and Toothless. How to Train Your Dragon nails one of the most important aspects of any film: having a likable main character that audiences will cheer for. From the opening of How to Train Your Dragon, you want Hiccup to succeed. The filmmakers managed to make Hiccup a really likable and innocent guy that served the story well.
Even more amazing than that, though, was the relationship created between Toothless and Hiccup. The connection that this boy and dragon have is heart-wrenching and incredible, and is conveyed through almost no dialogue. Chris Sanders has turned the silent, strong relationship between a kid and their pet into an art form within itself with Lilo and Stitch and now How to Train Your Dragon. There are parts of the film when you forget you're watching a movie and feel genuinely frightened that Hiccup will lose Toothless. It is a truly remarkable aspect of this film.
How to Train Your Dragon had decent animation. Every dragon was unique and colorful and just plain interesting to look at. There were many different types of dragons, all with imaginative names and powers. One reason why I loved the dragons' animation so much was because of the amount of emotion the animators managed to convey through solely their eyes. Another aspect of the animation I loved were the settings. The forest, village, and volcano were all very detailed, colorful, and works of art on their own. Although the animators were very skilled when it came to the dragons and settings, they were fairly lazy with the Vikings. The eyes were lifeless, the cloth and hair were inorganic, and the characters' acting lacked believability and humor. It was pretty distracting for someone like me who appreciates great animation and is very particular about what they like, but I doubt that the average moviegoer would notice. After all, it wasn't that bad.
Another great thing about How to Train Your Dragon was its soundtrack. While I was expecting the usual rap- and rock-laden track that so commonly graces Katzenberg's features, I was surprised to find that this particular film didn't. Instead, it was scored by an orchestra. And, more than that, its score was inspiring, beautiful, and very relevant to the subject matter. The music really helped heighten the action and emotion, and also helped to transport you back to the times of the Vikings. I've already purchased the soundtrack, and love the score even without the film playing along with it.
As Forrest Gump might say if he reviewed films, “DreamWorks is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get.” Some of their films are high-quality, entertaining movies worthy of Oscars while others are just embarrassingly awful. From the trailer, I couldn't decide where How to Train Your Dragon would fall on the Katzenberg Spectrum, but now I'm proud to say that it's one of my favorite films to come from DreamWorks. It is funny, touching, full of action, beautifully scored and animated, and imaginative. After seeing How to Train Your Dragon, Lasseter might actually think twice about letting Chris Sanders go.
I give How to Train Your Dragon a solid 8 out of 10. We can only hope that Sanders' next feature for DreamWorks, The Croods, is just as good.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
'How to Train Your Dragon' Trailer from DreamWorks
Above you will find the first official trailer for the next DreamWorks flick, How to Train Your Dragon. I'm still not sure what to think about it. The animation (or should I say MoCap), looks pretty decent; the people are certainly a step up from the rubbery beings from the Shrek universe. The dragon looks pretty weird, and I don't know about a main character named Hiccup, but at least I didn't see any pop culture references in the trailer. I hope that DreamWorks has finally decided to focus more on story than gimmicks, although the pushing of the 3D-ness of the film is not a step in the right direction. We'll see come March 26...
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Oobermind and Other New DreamWorks
DreamWorks Animation has decided to challenge Disney by increasing film production to five films every two years. Here's the current line-up for DreamWorks from Blue Sky Disney:
March 26th 2010:
How To Train Your Dragon - “Meet Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, heir of the Viking chiefdom, but a boy with one very big problem: a hero he is not. “How to Train Your Dragon’ is the riotous story of Hiccup’s quest to hunt down the fiercest dragon, bring it into submission, and—hopefully—pass his initiation. Instead, he ends up with the smallest, most ornery dragon—it’s even toothless! Thus begins the hijinx of the world’s most lovable, unlikely hero and a most reluctant “beast.” Packed with energetic drawings and plenty of action, this boisterous tale is just right for fantasy fans or anyone with a spirit of adventure. Based on the book by Cressida Cowell.” Directed by Chris Sanders (you guys remember him, right?), and featuring the voices of Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
May 21st 2010:
Shrek Forever After (formerly Shrek Goes Fourth) — Directed by Mike Mitchell (Duce Bigelow, Surviving Christmas, Sky High). Shrek suddenly finds himself in a in a twisted, alternate version of Far Far Away, where ogres are hunted, Rumplestiltskin is king and Shrek and Fiona have never met. Now, it’s up to Shrek to undo all he’s done in the hopes of saving his friends, restoring his world and reclaiming his one True Love.
November 5th 2010:
Oobermind (formerly Master Mind) - Written by Alan J. Schoolcraft and Brent Simons, Oobermind is a satirical take on superhero movies (think The Incredibles), in which a notorious villain (Robert Downey Jr) who finds life a little bit boring after he accidentally kills his nemesis, good guy superhero Metro Man. Ben Stiller and Tina Fey are part of the all-star voice cast.
June 3rd 2011:
Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom (formerly Kung Fu Panda 2) — Longtime story exec Jennifer Yuh Nelson makes her feature directorial debut, in a story following continuing adventures of Po, the Kung Fu panda.
November 4th 2011:
The Guardians — Based on an upcoming book series by William Joyce, whose work inspired Disney’s Meet The Robinsons. Described as “a contemporary fairytale based on existing fairytale characters,” Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Jack Frost and the Sandman team up to defend the world from a Bogeyman-like villain. Of course, the characters have been “somewhat renamed and massively reimagined”. The first book has a tentative release of Christmas 2010. Visual effects artist and animator Jeff Lynch makes his feature directorial debut.
March 20th 2012:
Puss in Boots — Shrek the Third director Chris Smith directs this prequel spin-off to Shrek 2, telling the story of Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas). Salma Hayek will voice the female love interest named Kitty.
May 27th 2012:
Madagascar 3 — Directed by Eric Darnell (Madagascar, Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa), in the third film in this franchise we follow the animals as they travel this time to Europe as part of a traveling circus. Tom McGrath previously said that the would like to see the characters return to their home, the Central Park Zoo, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen any time soon.
November 12th 2012:
Not chosen yet, but it will be one of these three projects that are in development.
The Croods (formerly Crood Awakenings) - From Chris Sanders and Kirk DeMicco’s comes the prehistoric story of a man’s position as Leader of the Hunt is threatened by the arrival of a prehistoric genius who comes up with revolutionary new inventions… fire. Sanders about the project: “The idea of having all the modern conveniences and social structures that we’re familiar with gone and being left with just a pure form of people was really fun to imagine working with.”
Truckers — based on the first of the thee books in Terry Pratchett’s best-selling The Bromeliad Trilogy, which tells the story of the Nomes, a race of tiny people from another world who now struggle to survive in the world hidden among humans. They find an artifact known as “The Thing” which teaches them about their secret history and make plans to return home. The screenplay is being written by "Slumdog Millionaire" scribe Simon Beaufoy. The film has been has been in development since 2001, originally with Shrek director Andrew Adamson attached to write and direct.
Super Secret Ghost Project (working title) — A story that examines what ghosts think about humans. Hilarity will undoubtedly ensue...
I really liked Kung Fu Panda, but Monsters vs. Aliens was definitely a letdown. How to Train Your Dragon sounds like a decent idea, as long as they can execute it well and not rely too much on their newfound obsession with 3D (which will be gone in 5 years, by the way). I hope they don't ruin Kung Fu Panda's sequel since I loved the first one, but I guess only Katzenberg knows for sure.
On a similar note, when I went to a seminar by DreamWorks back in March, they told me they were working on a new film then known as MasterMind. But, seeing as that title is copyrighted, they have changed the name to 
Oobermind. I hope it'll be better than Monsters Vs. Aliens, but my hopes aren't too high as of right now...
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Big Surprise: I Disagree with Jeffrey Katzenberg
In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Jeffrey Katzenberg discusses the new 3-D "enhancement" that he is now adding to all future DreamWorks releases. He talks about how 3-D is "going to create a whole new immersive feel to (every film's) world".
I completely disagree.
It seems to me that Katzenberg, in addition to many people at Disney and other animation studios, believes that 3-D will be as big an advancement as color was to movies. In the interview, Katzenberg elaborates: "When color came along, Technicolor, in the 1930s, 10 years later, people stopped making movies and going to movies in black and white. Why? Because we see in color. We also see in 3-D. I do think it's more natural for us."
When did animation suddenly have to be realistic!? If I want to see something naturalistic, I will go to a live action feature. If I want to see stylized artwork and quirky cartoon characters which shouldn't be realistic, I will go to a two-dimensional animated film. If animated films continue going down the same path, they will evetually fail to transport us to different worlds since they are trying so hard to make what's on the screen match the real world around us.
And another thing, I think that it is completely outrageous to say that 3-D is equal to Technicolor in technological advancement. 3-D is a cheap device that doesn't enhance the film in anyway. Color allowed for more diversity, beauty, and realistic feeling to be displayed on the screen. All 3-D does is bump up ticket prices and make it so you get a headache if you take the annoying little glasses off.
I think that 3-D was brought back a few years ago by some marketers from who-knows-where who had a sudden epiphany while watching that member of Bif's posse from Back to the Future who wears the 3-D glasses, and realized they could charge moviegoers more money for something they could easily dish out: 3-D.
I'll concede that when 3-D technology is drastically improved to the point where the audience actually feels immersed in whatever it is they're watching, studios should (maybe) start making their films in 3-D. And even then, they should use the 3-D story-enhancing techniques that Pixar has already discussed for Up. This is the only way that I can see 3-D being a positive device used in films: if it helps to tell the story.
But even then, it is obvious that 3-D remains a marketing ploy which simply bumps up ticket prices and gives people false illusions that what they are watching is more realistic.
And do you want to know what the best part about all of this is? Jeffrey Katzenberg, in one point of the interview, inadvertently agrees with me! He said: "But (in) the vast majority of films, it is used just as a trick, a gimmick, a theme-park attraction, and it is meant to take something that is fundamentally not particularly good and put this sort of gimmick overlay on it as a marketing push." (Such as Monsters vs. Aliens, Mr. Katzenberg?)
See? Even Walt Disney used 3-D as a gimmick at one point, but quickly realized its many faults.I think that the past attempts at 3-D speak for this: the Golden Era of 3-D was from 1952-1955, after that it was revived in 1960 but didn't last for just over a decade, it was then revived again in 1980 but lasted only 4 years then was quickly forgotten about once more. After 1984, it was revived once more a few years ago and will, I believe be forgotten about as quickly as it re-emerged.
Bottom-line: 3-D will not be around in 5 years. I believe that people will realize (especially if it costs extra money to get into a 3-D theater) what a hassle 3-D is and what a cheap and empty gimmick it provides to an audience that can get just as good a story and visual out of a good old-fashioned 2-D feature.
In the words of Roger Ebert: "To those that compare 3D to sound: the jury is still out on whether 3D can expand the artistic field like sound or color. Can 3D be used in a unique way that brings the author closer to the subject instead of merely a showy gimmick?. . . What can 3D do that 2D can't?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
